mannc
-
Posts
17,818 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mannc
-
-
Roy, you truly have no idea whether the owners colluded, so you don't have a clue whether Kaep's grievance has merit. I'll admit, I don't either, but the idea that the owners did collude is not as improbable as many seem to think. They do have a history of it..,1) As I already stated, read some lawsuits and the wild things alleged
2) As stated above there is no such thing as a right to have a job in the NFL
Believe what you want but this lawsuit, besides the media blowing it wildly out of proportion has zero merit unless the NFL really did collude. Gonna be really tough to prove since the Ravens wanted to sign him until Cap "sweetheart" compared the owner to a slave owner,
Now please dont come back and tell me the Ravens violated Cap's girlfriends first amendment rights because they didnt sign him. Actually that lawsuit would have as much merit as does Cap, as in zero.
-
Well, if the President of the United States orchestrated a campaign to prevent owners from hiring him because of his expression of his political views, then yes, he has had his First Amendment rights infringed. That's one of the allegations in the grievance.As I stated prior, there is absolutely no way CK had his first amendment rights infringed, zip zero zilch. Did anyone stop him from kneeling? Answer is a simple no. And has has been beat to death already why he isnt on a team is not relevant, the only relevance is if teams colluded. CK has first amendment rights do and and say what he wants...there is no right to get a job in the NFL..
-
You have absolutely no idea whether or not this is true.it was individual business decisions made by private citizens owning said business. not rocket science.
-
Wrong. This topic is covered above. Kaepernick is alleging that the owners have colluded against him "in retaliation for [his] leadership and advocacy for equality and social justice ...". He also alleges that the owners "have retaliated against [him] in response to coercion and calculated coordination from the Executive Branch of the United States government." I suspect he may try to show that this alleged state action directly brings the First Amendment into play. Interesting...And that is actually not the basis of his grievance, nor is it even close to the basis of his grievance. His position is that the NFL owners are colluding against him. Whether it's over his "stance", style of play, general attitude, or haircut is immaterial. The only question is whether there was collusion.
-
Hence, my use of the word "perceived".To characterize the totality of the behavior people find offensive as a stance against racial injustice is beyond disingenuous. That's like saying Ray Rice is out for standing up to his wife.
-
You should keep reading. There is some interesting stuff in the grievance. For example, he alleges that Trump has "been an organizing force in the collusion among team owners in their conduct towards Kaepernick" and that "NFL GMs and team leaders have referred to directives from NFL owners to not let Kaepernick so much as practice with a team." Maybe it won't be so hard to prove collusion after all...True that is what is grievance articulates but it not relevant, owners can decide they dont want him because of his hairdo, doesn't matter as long as they didnt collude.
And prompted by you I started to read his griwvance and got opnly this far,
"To date, and specifically from the 2016 season through the present, there has been no NFL rule prohibiting players from kneeling during the national anthem. Mr. Kaepernick has a constitutionally protected First Amendment right to engage in a silent and peaceful protest."
The first sentence is wildly misleading, rules were there and never enforced/tested and the lawyers carefully limited it to "kneeling", no in the rules "kneeling" was never listed specifically. Standing up was though.
Second sentence, yes Colin has First Amendment rights, they were never infringed. What he doesn't have is a right to a job and act in any manner he wants to while at that job. How is it players get fined for pretending to be a dog urinating? Where is their 1st amendment rights there? If you owned a starbucks and on of your employees decided to lecture every customer about how great Donald Trump is before they too an order, do you think Starbucks has the right to terminate the employee, of course they do.
-
I'm not sure about that. In some states, including California, it is illegal, with some exceptions, to fire or refuse to hire someone because of their political beliefs or affiliations. But that would be a difficult case to prove, of course.Here is a fact, no speculation, if the owners didnt bring him on board because of his kneeling etc they are 100% within their right and not in violation of the CBA as long as they did not collude.
-
Thanks for posting. Kaepernick is alleging that the owners have colluded not to sign him in retaliation for his outspoken views on perceived racial injustice. So my original point--that his grievance alleges that he's not in the league because of his expression of his political view--still stands. I will acknowledge that it will be difficult for him to prove collusion, since I'm sure the owners weren't stupid enough to send around a group email about not signing Kaepernick. We'll see.
-
Have you read the grievance, or are you just speculating?That is not true. Owners have every right to not hire him on their team,. The basis of his grievance is not why he isn't on a team, the basis is if team colluded.
-
Very big of you to want to move past it...It's one thing to recognize the past and learn from it, quite another to get stuck in and wallow in it.
-
Running backs and WRs don't get tackled during or immediately after attempting to throw the football; a QB who has just thrown a pass, like Rodgers yesterday, is extremely vulnerable because he's not in a position to protect himself from the collision with the defender or with the ground, and his shoulder is particularly vulnerable in that situation. That's the main reason why we need different rules to protect QBs and the hit on Rodgers is a great example of that.Yeah. He could have lessened the hit no doubt as it was obvious Rogers got rid of the ball. It doesn't bother me simply because I want quarterbacks to have to play actual NFL football too instead of flag football. He was tackled high, with arms wrapped. Didn't go for head. Didn't go for knees. Exactly the kind of tackles you want your guys to make on defense.
It's not "making the QB wear a dress," as some have said; it's protecting the most important player on the team, who happens to be uniquely vulnerable to injury because of what his position demands that he do.
-
Your original point--that Foles put up big numbers in Chip Kelly's system, therefore we can't trust any numbers put up by a QB in Chip Kelly's system--is so devoid of logic on its face that it's barely worth responding to. I'm not arguing that Kaepernick is an elite QB; only that he is better than almost all the backups in the league and a fair number of the starters, especially when you look at the list of starting QBs going into week 7. As evidence to support that argument, I pointed to statistics from his most recent season in the NFL, playing for a team that was almost totally devoid of offensive talent. Furthermore, Kaepernick has been in the league for quite a few years and has played at a fairly high level in the past, so it's not like his 2016 season was a total outlier.Actually, that wasn't my point, but I'm not exactly shocked that you didn't get that either.
The point is that the case you made to support your argument is a weak one. I demonstrated that by showing a parallel situation with a conclusion that is the opposite of what your theory would suggest.
And do you think for 2 seconds that Nick Foles would be in the league if he were mired in controversy?
As to your last sentence, I think you are acknowledging that the reason Kaepernick is not in the league is because of his outspoken stance regarding perceived racial injustice. Which is precisely the basis for his grievance.
-
The tackle itself was OK; it was the timing that made it dirty. The ball was away well before Barr hit Rodgers, and Barr clearly could have pulled up or held back but didn't. I agree with you that the hit on Clay was dirty, but that's just the kind of organization the Bengals are...garbage.Looked like a clean hit on the QB to me. Unfortunate result of injury, but the hit was clean.
They need to let guys hit quarterbacks more in my opinion. And that hit was as textbook as they get.
If you want to see a dirty hit, go look at the hit in the Cincy game that knocked Clay out with. Defender unnecessarily targeted Clay's knee.
-
He absolutely could have let up. The ball was well away by the time he hit Rodgers. I've seen that same play flagged dozens of times, in and out of the pocket.He could have let up I think or at least tried to let up. I wouldn't be surprised if it was intentional.
-
What did you think about Barr's hit on Rodgers? I thought it was dirty.First off hope you beat the Bucs next week. Second now I know how you guys have felt at times after yesterday, ouch. Hopefully you guys can go to the Superbowl now that were out of it.
-
That was in 2013. Foles was a very good QB that year. After that, he was injured and didn't play nearly as well. Big deal. And guess what? Foles is still in the league.The claasic question is raised again: Are you dumb or dishonest?*
You post a single datapoint (TD/INT) from a single season as the proof that he's good, and thus imply he's not starting because he's part black. I showed an example of another player with an even more impressive TD/INT stat in the same system as Kaepernick, and who no one thinks is good despite him being white.
So are you pretending not to understand the point, or were you genuinely too stupid to figure it out on your own?
* These are not mutually exclusive
If your point is that everything a QB does in a Chip Kelly system needs to be ignored (because it's such an awesome system for QBs?), it's a ridiculous argument. My point was simply that in his most recent season in the NFL, for a team nearly devoid of NFL talent, Kaepernick performed pretty damn well. Are you pretending not to understand the point, or are you too stupid to figure it out on your own?
-
In the stats that matter, like YPA, he was bottom third of starters in the league, but ahead of employed folks like Rivers, Eli, Flacco, Wentz...and check out his receiving corps in SF last year. Putrid, worse than what Tyrod's got this year. At any rate, Kaepernick is plenty good enough to have a job in the NFL, and probably a starting job, at that.Yards, yards per game, completion percentage, ypc, ypa...
-
It was both.Rodgers is my favorite player in the NFL, but that hit was neither late nor dirty with him outside of the pocket.
-
All that proves is that you're free to beat women, kill dogs and smoke dope...but try speaking out for racial justice and you're untouchable.Exactly. Zeke Elliott, Mike Vick in the past, Leveon bell. If you are good, owners will sign you
-
Like what? Pro Football Reference ranked him 17th last year, ahead of Tyrod, Rivers, Eli, Flacco, and a lot of other currently fully employed QBs.He was in the bottom quarter of the league in most stats. Look it up.
So it didn't count?Wasn't that in the same system that saw Nick Foles throw 27 TDs to 2 INT?
-
Then why did you predict that they would trounce us?Remember the Cardinals, Rams and Brady less pats last year?
I have no idea what the Broncos and Falcons records will be when the dust settles but right now they don't look like very good teams so yes our wins over them mean very little have the classic asterisk next to them.
-
you are simply wrong. Last year, in 11 starts, he threw for 16 TDs and only 4 ints. He ranked near the middle of the pack of NFL starters. So the narrative that Kaepernick sucks is a false one.This entire situation is just bizarre. He quit his contract voluntarily. He was not a good Qb. Even BEFORE his political "stance/knee" he looked like hot garbage. The summer before he left he had three surgeries and came back super thin. He lost his biggest upside as a QB - his size/speed ratio. Some attributed it to a vegan diet, regardless, it happened. I see him and RGIII in the same boat. Cleveland gave RGIII and chance and see where that got em.
-
Isn't that exactly what he's doing?If he feels he's being wronged, then he should explore options within the collective bargaining agreement. It'll be investigated, and a decision will be made. Instead of being fully played out in the media.
-
Thank GodXrays negative. Winston feels he'll play
Kaepernick Files Grievance Against NFL Owners
in Politics, Polls, and Pundits
Posted